Melogrunty

"Believe in something" doesn't have to be a religion. The word belief isn't exclusive to religion.

Comedy turned from making jokes into having people pay you to stand on a soap box and pretend you are important for a few hours.

If pharmas could do cheaper, more accurate research with computer models than animals, why wouldn't they do it and just pocket the savings?

If it costs $4.5 billion -- excuse the cached link but Forbes redirects clicks to their front page with direct links from google -- (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XvrkFm9zRLYJ:www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-beta) if a drug doesn't fail during any stage of the process but could cost upto $12 billion (when dealing with failures), what cost savings would a pharma expect from doing only computer-modeled research. What success rate is reported from strictly computer-modeled R&D compared to current standards?

I'm interested in whether these statements are backed up by facts or just talking points from a non-profit.

In the cases where strictly tissue and computer models were used for testing, without the drug being introduced into a living creature, how would the drug be able to be released onto the market. Whenever a drug has severe side effects, a class-action lawsuit is filed against the pharma and they lose lots of money to that avenue; I'm guessing lawsuits for unexpected side effects were the result of taking shortcuts during R&D and non-standard testing.

If you could post a list of successful drugs released thanks to the activists of your organization, it would really help your cause.